Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHARITONASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 41957/04
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 41957/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 41957/04

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 38, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01

  PAVLYULYNETS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 41957/04

  As to the Government's reference to an excessive case-load and the reorganisation of the judicial system, the Court reiterates, first, that a chronic backlog of cases is not a valid explanation for excessive delays, and, secondly, it remains the responsibility of the Contracting State to organise its courts in such a way as to guarantee everyone's right to the determination of their civil rights and obligations "within a reasonable time" (see Probstmeier v. Germany, 1 July 1997, § 64, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV; Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 51, 6 September 2005; G.H. v. Austria, no. 31266/96, § 20, 3 October 2000).
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  RACHEVI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 41957/04

  The domestic courts could also have fixed firm time-limits for the authorities" submission of requested documents and expert opinions (see, Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 90, 23 September 2004; Peryt v. Poland, no. 42042/98, § 57, 2 December 2003; Sobierajska-Nierzwicka v. Poland, no. 49349/99, § 112, 27 May 2003).

• EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 31932/03

  UGUZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 41957/04

  Furthermore, having regard to the fact that, according to the case file, the applicant's housing dispute is still pending before the domestic courts (see paragraphs 30 and 46 above), the Court considers that the most appropriate form of redress would consist in bringing its remainder to a conclusion as soon as possible, by administering the proceedings in accordance with all the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, UÄŸuz v. Turkey, no. 31932/03, § 30, 13 December 2007).
• EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 42042/98

  PERYT v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 41957/04

  The domestic courts could also have fixed firm time-limits for the authorities" submission of requested documents and expert opinions (see, Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 90, 23 September 2004; Peryt v. Poland, no. 42042/98, § 57, 2 December 2003; Sobierajska-Nierzwicka v. Poland, no. 49349/99, § 112, 27 May 2003).
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 49349/99

  SOBIERAJSKA-NIERZWICKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 41957/04

  The domestic courts could also have fixed firm time-limits for the authorities" submission of requested documents and expert opinions (see, Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 90, 23 September 2004; Peryt v. Poland, no. 42042/98, § 57, 2 December 2003; Sobierajska-Nierzwicka v. Poland, no. 49349/99, § 112, 27 May 2003).
• EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 55220/00

  CSANADI v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 41957/04

  Having regard to all the circumstances of the present case and, in particular, to the fact that more than eight years and eleven months have elapsed without the first instance court having addressed the merits of the case (see Csanádi v. Hungary, no. 55220/00, §§ 35 and 16, 9 March 2004; Sobierajska-Nierzwicka, cited above, § 113), the Court concludes that applicant's case has not been heard within a "reasonable time".

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen